The Death Of Rover - TOP GEAR KILLED AN ENTIRE CAR MAKER?! - Analysing The Facts

[@tomdrives]

I've got to admit, i'm a little bit disappointed that some people aren't getting the point and commenting on a video they've watched 30 seconds of. So I'll explain it in brief and pin this comment. This video is a response to the comments I get on my other videos blaming Jeremy Clarkson, James May and Richard Hammond for the death of Rover. I put this video together to explore that point and prove that in my opinion that was NOT the case. I explain in the video why i think this. I hope this clears it up.

[@sacredgeometry]

Rover died because they were not good.

[@les4048]

I almost did exactly what you initially stated Tom but thankfully following you I knew there must be more to it. Thank you for another excellent video

[@kevcracknell4542]

The top gear boys didn’t kill Rover, the troubles started early on as BLMC, then BL, making cars that competed with others from the same group, British aerospace then selling to bmw rather than getting Honda more involved. The phoenix four just kept it going for a little while longer, it was doomed

[@adamlee3772]

You’re right. The sale to BMW killed Rover. That was allowed to happen to deliberately kill the company I think.

[@Binge420]

@@adamlee3772not necessarily however the selling off of Land Rover by bmw and then bmw keeping the mini brand. Also politics didn’t help. It should never have been allowed to join so many competing car companies into one big massive conglomerate. Many things ruined mg/rover. Top gear wasn’t one of them.

[@Ben-jq5oo]

@@Binge420It seems to me they followed the General Motors idea. We saw the same approach with other companies including the Roots Group, VW etc, but it didn’t work for BL. Was it because the public could no longer identify with what they perceived each individual brand meant now all the brands had a blue L badge on them? I always found it very strange seeing the Leyland badge on a Triumph or a Rover. When GM took on Vauxhall and Opel they were managed to retain individual brand identity yet still competed directly with the same models, but then Opel was taken out of the UK market leaving just one GM brand, unlike BL with its many models competing against each other; Rover SD1/Jaguar, Allegro (non hatch)/Marina. I think Mini was the only distinct model in the BL group which must be something BMW recognised..

[@LastOnSunday]

There is a big difference between platform sharing & simply rebadging cars with another badge you happen to own.

[@daysofgrace2934]

Phoenix Four embezzled the company. They were just vultures...

[@Da_StormtroopeR]

As a German I can say Top Gear didn't had any impact in Germany at that time. Especially the sporty MG models were popular and also the Streetwise. The problem was MG Rover was running out of money (Thanks to BMW! ) and had problems to keep their cars modern, even no chance to talk about "ahead of time."

[@hansulrichboning8551]

The problem with BMW was, that it is more or less owned by one shareholder,the Quandt-Family.This family certainly disliked that Mr.Pischetsrieder burned their money

[@Timico1000]

Also a german here: Rover and MG gained a bit of popularity as long as BMW owned them, but that stopped after BMW pulled the plug.

[@bemolp7498]

As a german i can say that Rover never was a popular Brand. Because of the design and the quality of the older models (big rust problems). MG was only known for MG F at this time. Land Rover and Mini were and are popular Brand particular today.

[@mrbojangles8133]

those cars were always turds

[@Timico1000]

@@mrbojangles8133 At least the Honda based models and the 75 were really good cars.

[@LastOnSunday]

Clarkson absolutely hammered the Vauxhall Vectra & it sold millions. He raved about the Citroen C6 & it sold a few hundred.

[@tomdrives]

Exactly this

[@CynicalBastard511]

Clarkson's review didn't stop people from buying the Vauxhall Vectra. I don't think it ever outsold the Ford Mondeo, but at one point, the Vectra was the fourth best selling car in the UK and it was always on the Top Five and Top Ten best selling car list in the UK throughout its lifespan. The Insignia, on the other hand, did manage to outsell the Mondeo. But by the time Vauxhall vanquished Ford, nobody cared about "Vauxhall vs Ford" anymore. People just wanted either a BMW 3-Series or a crossover. And now in 2024 they either have to have a Tesla or some electric Chinese if they want a car, because despite Brexit and all that "freedom" BS speech, the UK is still in Europe as far geography goes and as such, they still have to obey the coerced ZEV or BEV mandate of the EU. There is no actual demand for electric cars; the demand for electric cars is a coerced demand. _"Either you have an electric car or we're going tax the hell out of you if you continue to drive that diesel hatchback. Even if meets Euro 6 emissions standards. Then we're going ban you of driving your diesel hatchback, regardless what Euro Emission Standards it meets and you will have two choices: buy an electric car or no car at all"._

[@chrisevaggelou8473]

Never really paid attention to Clarkson reviews as I like to make my opinion based on me driving the car. It was so easy to get a test drive in any new car.

[@luvstellauk]

To be fair, if you were a fleet buyer in the 70s,80s and 90s Ford and Vauxhall were the go to manufacturer and in the 90s that meant Sierra vs Cavalier and later on Mondeo vs Vectra, IIRC Clarkson found the Vectra dull, well it's rival the Mondeo wasn't exactly exciting, in those days they were tools to get reps around the country reliably and economically, being exciting to look at wasn't in the remit, they just had to do a job, hence why both the Mondeo and the Vectra sold well, they did the job they were intended for.

[@noldo3837]

He also hammered Skoda, and it was very successful in the UK.

[@pilskadden]

Top Gear didn’t kill Rover. The slow death began way before with the formation of BLMC. Completely inept management, workers who spent more time on strike than making cars, money wasted in all the wrong places, quality of the cars churned out in the 70’s was horrific. As much as I like Rover, I’m surprised the company managed to survive as long as it did.

[@nkelly.9]

Funny, you didn't mention woeful management, it was all the union's fault wasn't it? They decided to build all those awful cars didn't they?

[@rainbowappleslice]

⁠@@nkelly.9 the list of problems in this comment literally starts with inept management

[@naamadossantossilva4736]

@nkelly.9 Poor management was a consequence of the unions.You can't put your foot down and change things if the factory floor will erupt into a strike.No capital due to high wages means you can't modernize the production line or the models . BMC could have the best managers in the world,they would be forced out or quit.

[@nkelly.9]

@@naamadossantossilva4736Utter bollocks. Oh, so the unions decided to build such abysmal cars as the Marina and the Allegro did they, or was that management? The Marina was built on production lines built to build the Mini. The unions' fault that the production lines weren't modernised? Can I have some of what you are taking? Did the unions decide not to properly invest in tooling and development of the vehicles too? A yoga master would marvel at the contortions involved in your attempt at argument. Poor attempt at pushing your bias, son. BTW. Germany has always had a heavily unionised workforce and they have been a powerhouse of automotive manufacturing, it's just that they do not have the puerile adversarial system that the UK has based on its outdated class structure with silver spoon donkeys in suits stuffing everything they touch. murdoch has ruined more in your life than any union has.

[@KarlHamilton]

BMW killed Rover - They bought it, kept the best pieces for themselves, let the rest steadily decline, then shat it out. The Honda collaboration was going really well, such a waste.

[@stivowen5710]

The BMW ownership was great for Rover with the 75, it was a great car. When BMW left Rover they left them with a dowry which was £1b, one billion! They were more cash rich than they had been in 30 years. Thatcher twice (f*****g twice) refused to sell The Rover brand to VW, instead VW bought Skoda. Honda left the partnership because they would not deal with BMW. BMW didn’t kill Rover. When Phoenix got their hands on Rover what did they do? Paid each other huge bonuses and bankrupted the company. Finally the (equal) worst prime minister ever said he wouldn’t give any money to keep Rover open. Fu**ing politicians killed Rover. BMW made a huge success of MINI and now they build more cars than Rover ever did. That’s a huge success.

[@KarlHamilton]

@@stivowen5710 False.

[@slr19680]

​@@KarlHamilton true

[@chrislockey7706]

Agreed

[@carlarrowsmith]

The Honda collaboration was becoming less of a collaboration as time went on, there were less and less differences with each new model. Honda wasn't interested in ownership and how long could they have gone on for doing small restyles and tweaks. BMWs mistake with Rover was thinking of them as a semi premium brand, doing a large car with retro styling, both of which turned out not such good ideas sales wise. They should have sold the 200 as a metro replacement and built a golf competitor so they didn't need to pay Honda royalties, that's where Rovers mass market was.

[@stevebishop4926]

Rover was destroyed by British Leyland, trades unions and poor management. BMW only bought Rover for the assets, primarily land at Longbridge and Oxford, the development of which has returned billions, I was there.

[@tomdrives]

Did you work at Rover?

[@ascelot]

@@tomdrives Consider that Rover continued to use the K series engine with known gasket engine failures, would you consider that good management?

[@Ezz800]

@@ascelotAs much as people shit on the Chinese, it’s funny that it took ‘them’ to fix the K-Series head gasket issue. But you already knew that.

[@ascelot]

@@Ezz800 Did know Rover brand went to chinese, but after that, its new to me, and FYI, ive had 2 rovers (75s), both TDI versions and loved both cars (last Rover was written off), and I loved its design choice, sort of retro and unique.

[@orwellboy1958]

@@tomdrives you didn't have to work for Rover to know what was happening at BL, just watch the news.

[@richardbryant7505]

Making shit cars killed Rover, nothing else.

[@fenflyer]

Some of the most reliable cars I ever owned Rover SD1 V8 on LPG cheaper to run than Diesel Renault 21, maestro 1.3 170K miles never let me down............... the most unreliable Renault 11 turbo always failing to start when hot , Fiat Strada rotted out in 18 months 🤔

[@neilwalsh4058]

Ford were building far worse cars from the 1950's until the Focus came out, but they survived?

[@leoroverman4541]

ably assisted by cretinous Government politics.

[@mariapires7170]

100% agreed. The cars, mainly the ultimate production cars, were pure rubbish. Top Gear and the boys ruinned Rover cars? For God sake!

[@davarosmith1334]

@@richardbryant7505 considering my car is 21 years and counting and still on the road with a no advisory s M.O.T. My Rover 75 isn't shit far from it!

[@Galahadfairlight]

Top Gear didn't kill Rover, BMW did. BMW basically asset stripped the company, took away the new Mini for themselves which on its own could have saved Rover, stopped 100 production with no successor, stopped 600 production and replaced with the 75, which whilst on paper sounds fine, the 600 was never the car that was keeping Rover in the black. Left Rover with aged MGF and 25/45 models, and let them keep the MG marque, whilst selling off or keeping for themselves every other marque. Selling Land Rover, Jaguar, Bentley, Rolls Royce, Rover Group had nothing of any worth left. What Rover needed was to retain the Mini, and a replacement for the 100/Metro, not the 75, because they had great success with small cars, and the success of Mini and the Metro replacement would have given them the funds to develop replacements for 25/45 cars. I blame BMW for asset stripping Rover, but I also blame Rover for not realising the same thing as BMW did, selling off some of the luxury marques to raise capital for new models which could have seen them survive longer. The writing however was on the wall, no matter if Rover survived or not, they would have eventually been swallowed up by something like Stellantis as the amount of cad manufacturers shrinks because of an uncertain future with EV etc. Rover retaining the Mini could have been a game changer for them and BMW took it away from them.

[@Tidda86]

In my opinion BMW and the UK government killed Rover

[@simply_psi]

Spot on, the UK government specifically Margaret Thatcher by selling Rover Group to British Aerospace, they knew that Bridish Aerospace just wanted to sell of the car maker ASAP, that is why the government put in a 5 year no sell clause hoping this would give enough time to distance the government the sale to BMW. BMW only ever wanted Rover Group for the 4x4 technology they then used to launch the X5 they also needed a compact car to satisfy new EU legislation on car makers who only made big engined cars so they used 2 Rover designed cars one was the new mini and the other after a very small redesign to change it to RWD became the BMW One series. These were models that could have helped save Rover but instead BMW took these models. With ths cost of developing a totally new platform from scratch being around £1bn the money they saved in buying Rover using their designs to launch 3 new platform vehicles (X5, Mini and One series) aas considerable. It is my belief that BMW always intended to dump Rover on the scrapheap after pillaging their 2 new car designs and the 4x4 technology.

[@smorris12]

​@@simply_psi Land Rover didn't have enough 4x4 technology to make it worth buying a Discovery, let alone the company. There's nothing in the original X5 that has anything to do with any LR product. The E53 was a jacked up version of the 5 series - of which they'd been doing 4wd versions since the late 80s. The 1 series was a BMW design and would have been out a few years earlier if it hadn't been for the financial drain Rover was causing

[@simply_psi]

@smorris12 yes BMW had done 4x4's in their saloon/sadan cars for many years, but they had not done a propper off road vehicle, they were not familiar with packaging requirements of a true off roader, the raising of air intakes, the isolation and extra water proofing of electrical components, suspension, ground clearance, and the very big difference in NVH needs of an off road vehicle compared to a standard road going vehicle. At the time BMW purchased Rover, Land Rover held the record for the angle an off-road vehicle could operate from without tipping over. They were the first company to develop hill descent control, which was directly taken by BMW, I know this because my brother worked for Rover bother before the BMW took over and afterwards. He saw that at the beginning og the take over the company was swamped by BMW designers and Engineers and they were examining everywhere in the design and production facilities, at first my Brother just thought they were coming in to see where they could improve design and production as BMW had the much better reputation, but it became clear that what they were doing was, checking exactly what they could take from the company. Look at the difference between how WV are when they buy a company, they share their technology and help improve the brand, look what dhey did with Skoda, a brand that was in way worse shape than Rover Group, yet WV put the effort in, improved production and shared their designs with Skoda and help build the brand to become one of the better European car makers. BMW just asset stripped Rover, this can be seen in the X5, as the early version had very similar reliability issues to the Range Rover including issues with ghe door locks opening when driven off road over 40 degrees angle, now that is one heck of a coincidence if they design hadn't been taken the design directly from the Range Rover. Land Rovers 4x4's are not as unreliable as their reputation would have people believe, several people I know have had Land Rovers, including Discoveries, Defenders, Range Rovers and Range Rover Sports, I must admit most of them no longer own them because of insurance costs being so high, because of a recent problem with the electronic locks making them very easy to steal. Out of all of their cars, only one had reliability issues, and this was a used car that had not been treated well by previous owners.

[@baronvonjo1929]

If the brand had to be sold to begin with then it already was commited to its own fate. Its like with people blaming SAABs discontinuing on GM or decline of the Chrysler brands on Stellantis. If the car brand is being sold off to another owner than they had deep flaws to begin with and already destroyed themselves and needed saving. If the new owners end up making it worse than oh well, at least the brand got a few extra years.

[@simply_psi]

@baronvonjo1929 it was different with Rover Group, it was state owned and had previously had issues, but due to it's partnership with Honda was now back in profit, but the UK government under Margaret Thatcher did not believe in state ownership of companies so she not only sold off Rover to British Aerospace, but also sold of British Telecom, British Gas, The Electricity Board, all of the British water supply/sewage treatment companies and British Rail. It was a political decision, not a decision based on success. Honda was interested, but the UK government was keen to sell to a British company. Then British Aerospace sold Rover again Honda were interested but BMW paid more as they were desperate for 2 cars Rover had under development they were the new Mini, and a sub compact car that became the BMW 1 series, they were also keen to develop a 4wd SUV and wanted Land Rover/Range Rover's technology and packaging skills to develop what became the X5, once that had stripped Rover of these assets they were no longer interested in the marque. They were just going to close it, but pressure from the UK government and the threat of declining sales from bad publicity meant they sold Land Rover/Jaguar to Ford and Rover to a venture capital company, but with BMW having taken all there new models, they had no new cars in development and as new cars cost around $1bn to develop they had no capital to invest in new models, so the company was doomed to fail as the model range got older and less competitive. So to sum up, no, nothing like Saab and GM, etc.

[@MontegoReviews]

The offhand comments and fair reviews by Top Gear are a result of Rover's past. BL having poor build quality, and favouring Jaguar over rover in the 70s and early 80s, BMW openly saying Rover will not survive, underfunding , not having an understanding of the issues within the company, and splitting MG and Rover from Land Rover and Mini (the money makers) in the late 90s, and the Phoenix Consortium committing various crimes to do with money in the 2000s are the reasons why Rover failed. None of Rover's owners/partners gave them the resources to develop a car properly.

[@Low760]

No different to Holden in Australia. The last Australian Commodore was amazing but it was too late.

[@neilgodwin6531]

Mini continued to be made at Longbridge until the end of its life. A huge facility was built, designated Cab 2 to build the new "SuperMini" and the future looked secure, but BMW announced without warning that the new car would be built at Abingdon. Shortly after, again without warning, the 75, including part built cars and specialist track equipment, was moved, literally over a weekend, to Abingdon. I think we knew then BMW was going to dispose of Longbridge. Morale was terrible, but then the Phoenix Four took over, after BMW officially signed the death warrant, and they were mobbed by ecstatic workers. Unfortunately, quality declined as costs were cut...... Had they continued the association with Honda, perhaps things might have been different, but the arrangement with Tata produced a truly dreadful car. I remember we were horrified

[@markdance574]

Top gear was very clear in it’s opinions , this applied to not only Rover but Vauxhall , Tesla , Dacia , Range Rover etc and yes it could be argued that the sheer popularity of the show did or didn’t help the brands featured but ultimately in cases like Rover , Tvr and others these companies killed themselves .

[@chrisblay]

Unfortunately, the phoenix four only helped themselves.

[@matthewgodwin3050]

If God helps them who help themselves, then God must be giving the four phoenix scoundrels a very great deal of help.

[@RantingBrummie]

Biggest bunch of con artists to ever set for in Birmingham. If BMW had sold to the Alchemy group, it would have stood half a chance.

[@carlnapp4412]

The British car industry never needed help to go down. To blame Top Gear is a remarkable joke.

[@a11csc]

some great points Tom,but Rover had pressed the self destruct button a long time before

[@matthewgodwin3050]

Old independent Rover, the company that built the P4, P5, & P6, ceased to be when it was incorporated into British Leyland in the late 60s. The company we still know today as Rover is actually what was left of British Leyland. The cars were never actually Rovers at all really, just slightly reworked and rebadged Hondas. They were great cars, and I will always love them, but the sad fact is, they were always pretending to be something that they couldn't quite pull off. The last true Rover was the glorious P6. Which was quite a swan song really. A truly special car.

[@roverenderalligator9104]

@matthewgodwin3050 I have some sympathy with that having had all three of those models & still have a couple of P6's & my P5B which l bought in 1985. I would say though that though l didn't like it at the time, the SD1could have been a world-beater had the BL bean counters not got at it during development, or the problems with build quality hadn't beset the early cars. And l do now run an '02 75 which when l first got her, gave me the same feeling as my P5B & has been a 'sterling' daily car for the past nine years.

[@paulschneider9286]

TopGear didn’t kill Rover. The completely outclassed and outdated car range did that. Plus the Rover employees were wailing about us Brits not buying their cars, whereas the French buy French, Italians buy Italian etc. Rover was killed by a rubbish and undesirable model range. A car is a consumers second largest purchase after a house. If they’d stuck with Honda at least they’d have stood a better chance despite the dumpy Civic that led to the 400.

[@matthewgodwin3050]

I'll have you know that us 'wailing' Rover employees poured our hearts, our souls, and every last drop of our passion into everything we did at Rover Group, the company we truly loved like it was family; because it was our family. We produced some of the finest cars the world has ever seen, with very limited resources, and at times under very difficult circumstances; but we never faltered. I am very proud of what we made, and those cars are still giving faithful & loyal service to their enthusiastic owners today. If you can't recognise that, then buy a soulless Tesla. I'm sure you'll be very happy with it.

[@v285ljx]

Owned several rovers/mgs all were perfectly decent cars

[@AmigaA-or2hj]

I had a Morris Minor. Years later, I had MK2 Rover 400. Best car ever! Better than Ford!

[@sotirismp2883]

@@matthewgodwin3050 im sorry to let you know but you really didnt build some of the finest cars.

[@matthewgodwin3050]

@@sotirismp2883 Your opinion is noted. However, a great many people would disagree with you. Mini. Rover P4, P5, P6. Range Rover. Rover Turbine Car. Land Rover. Triumph Stag. Triumph Dolomite Sprint. Triumph Acclaim. Rover R8 Series. Rover R3 Series. Rover 800 & 800 Coupe. Rover 75. You saying these weren't fine cars?

[@kennethwelty1190]

Your unions killed your auto industry greedy union and management.

[@fenflyer]

Some of the most reliable cars I ever owned= Rover SD1 V8 3.5 on LPG, cheaper to run than our diesel Renault 21 and whole lot more fun & reliable the V8 was awesome sound 🇬🇧 👍 Austin Maestro 1.3 170K miles never let me down 👍 The most unreliable cars I owned= Renault 11 turbo always failed to start when hot after motorway driving... Fiat Strada rotted out in 18 months 🤔

[@louisbeerreviews8964]

The government

[@nayftv]

The top gear lads called a turd a turd rover had far worse problems than top gear … Bl started the downfall with mismanagement and trade disputes then the Honda platform sharing saved them for a while but then bmw ripped out landrover and the possible brand saving new mini leaving the skint shell of a brand then the city rover was the death rattle and by time longbridge was rased to the ground rover was over the end of final incarnation of British Leyland came to an end

[@kokliangchew3609]

Rover committed seppuku without any help from outsiders. I remember in the late 1980s, Prince Charles bought a top of the line Rover car and went to pick it up himself. Not wanting to miss a trick, the Rover executives invited all the media they could and everybody turned out in force for the handover ceremony. Unfortunately for Rover, when Prince Charles drove his car away, it broke down less than a few miles from the showroom, and it had to be towed back to the showroom with some of the media still around. The whole incident blew up in the media and Prince Charles was not exactly pleased :)

[@matthewgodwin3050]

It wasn't three wide-boys that did for Rover, it was four scoundrels.

[@richardbyrnes8398]

Very much this.

[@paulelverstone8677]

As I have - and always will say - BL have an awful lot to answer for. And if a bunch of tits on a motoring show want to beat that company with a big stick well, their own management did that to them first. BMW offered a gilt-edged chance to get back on track and, although the 75 was a good car, it was clearly 'retro' styled, shall we say, so only really appealing to an older clientele... who were only too aware of where Rover had come from. The very idea that someone in management thought that the marque could hark back to its previous successes like the P6 and not think of its failures, like the SD1 is eye-wateringly incompetent to me. BL/Austin Rover/Rover's demise is not Top Gear's fault. They'd brought this all on themselves. All imho...

[@matthewgodwin3050]

As an ex-Rover Group & MG Rover employee, and a life long enthusiast of Rover cars, I absolutely agree with you 100%. I will however say that Michael Edwardes did an incredible job putting BL, later Austin Rover on the right track. It's thanks to him that Rover survived into the 1990s. Sadly though, every successive manager/owner made increasingly large mistakes that ultimately led to thousands of brilliant and very talented people losing their jobs. It still hurts. But at least we still have the cars.

[@LastOnSunday]

Rover made a big thing of their Britishness, history & heritage in the marketing of the new cars. It’s not really a surprise that young buyers saw Rover as a old fashioned company?

[@paulelverstone8677]

@@matthewgodwin3050 I was at Canley during an anniversary open-day (TR7 based?) in the early 90's and saw the leaps and bounds AR had made. After a successful 80's with the Maestro/Montego/Metro, the colab with Honda seemed like a really smart move. More than anything BL/AR needed reliability. Who cared if they were really Honda Ballades or Legends - they moved units. Not class leaders but in the running - still relevant. I loved the MG EX-E concept (that I'd always suspected Honda took for the NSX project as they are eerily similar) and 800 coupe (which is arguably my most favourite of the 'modern' Rovers). There was talent within those walls. It is really a crying shame what happened...

[@torsteinengevik3744]

Maybe (just maybe) they tried to help. But the TopGear concept was based on sarcasm and stereotyping, and with an audience already suspicious and sceptic about English cars, any ironic joke was taken as evidence. I remember very well the comments about the Rover 75 interior looking like a British gentlemans club. A friend of me wanted a Rover at that time but I told him it looked old fashioned, based om the TopGear comments. But when I first saw it in real life (not many Rovers in Norway) it looked stunning, inside and out. And I wished I owned one…

[@bombercountyblues]

You formed an opinion strong enough to express it to someone else about something you'd never seen based on a t.v. comment... that says a lot more about you than it does about top gear or rover.

[@mojosabien]

Bollocks. Years of crap build quality and lacklustre styling made Rovers unfashionable. So much so that even having the BMW name behind them couldn’t counter it. Top Gears coverage of the 75 was actually very favourable but Rover had a reputation of building cars for old people. A reputation that the management seemed powerless to change. They failed to build on what successes they had and thus had no money to deliver the product development necessary to keep up with market. Blaming Top gear for that is puerile and asinine.

[@davarosmith1334]

@@mojosabien Bull shit , the Rover Tom Cat wasn't designed for old farts , considering Tiff on Top gear took it to Germany and drove it at 140 mph on the motorway. He said it was an excellent car to drive and gave it plenty of praise!. Paddy Kirk drove the Rover Vettesse round the Isle of Man at an average speed of 110 mph , he was impressed with the handling .The SD1 before that was a great race car with great results, so I don't think Rover made cars for old people. BMW knew what they wanted, and that was Mini, knowledge of the Land Rover, so they could build a 4 X4 and they wanted to hamper Rover by not letting them make the Rover 75 rear wheel drive from the beginning as they knew it would definitely have took sales away from the 3 series. The 75 with it's Rover 4.9 V8 would definitely have wiped the floor with the BMW 3 series!

[@mojosabien]

@@davarosmith1334 one car. The metro, meastro, montego, the 600, 800, 25, 45, 75. Don't get me wrong not all of these cars are awful but none of them were fashionable.

[@rafaeloreirorodriguez5278]

@@mojosabienfrom that period bmw also built lots of crap as Audi aswell.

[@emgee9775]

The Top Gear clowns DID help to kill Rover MG. The middle aged boy racers who were only interested in burning rubber in exotic super cars for cheap ratings, and long since lost the sensible format of the original show. People like Clarks*n were arrogant, dismissive uber celebrities in the age before internet and people listened to them, without using their own research, and many stopped buying. They just didn’t live in the real world. There were plenty of good MG Rover cars that were fine once gremlins had been sorted, but disasters like head gasket failures, poor build quality and poor management, strong unions collided head on with sensationalist misleading ‘journalism’. The result? Loss of sales, collapse of a famous British icon and the loss of thousands of jobs.

[@seventh-hydra]

Found the butthurt ex-Rover employee

[@enwins]

I was a producer on Men and Motors, which was a channel of many TV series. Not just a single weekly series. I was a fan of Rover too and would have challenged any presenter who gave an biased unbalanced criticism. I worked with Richard Hammond a lot. I agree that the 75 had a retro twee interior that might not appeal to younger buyers, even though I liked it. It was a very well built car and if I remember right we said so. I think some of Jeremy's comments didn't help but the real problems started earlier. The decisions you have highlighted. The failure to replace the Metro being the last nail for me.

[@tomdrives]

Agree with you there.

[@Guderian0617]

If James May calls a car old-fashioned, it must have had a horse pulling it

[@w00df0rd]

Very easy to romanticise British Leyland cars - Rovers, Allegros, Montegos, SD1s, Mk1 800s. Try owning one in the eighties. Can see why you love Mk1 800s and 200 Coupes though, now they're such a rare sight, they're interesting in a way they never were thirty years ago.

[@MGBetts1]

Much as I disliked their format, I don't honestly think Austin-Rover's downfall is due to them. There was a lot of derisory talk about BL in those days (not all of it justified) and Top Gear just simply jumped on the bandwagon.

[@duncansnowden6857]

Phoenix was never going to work, for the reasons Clarkson set out in his Sunday Times piece. You can't run a mass-market car manufacturer on a shoestring. You just can't. Hardly anyone seems to remember the Alchemy proposal, which would have seen MG continue as a low-volume manufacturer in the vein of Lotus or TVR - *under British ownership* - and was all-but concluded when the government stepped in to push Phoenix's case. The situation whereby BMW retained the Rover name and licenced it to MGR originated in that plan, the idea being to let Rover production continue until the cars came to the end of their natural lives (because Alchemy recognised the impossibility of replacing them), allowing for a gradual winding down of volume production at Longbridge rather than a sudden closure. The pain didn't come from Rover's demise; the pain came from refusing to admit that it was dead.

[@iainmclaughlan1557]

I recall Alchemy very well. They did the research and realised they could not get a buyer or partner anywhere.

[@numberstation]

“I want something modern!” said James May, before dressing up like Biggles and flying off in his 1930’s Tiger Moth biplane 🙄

[@mattevans4377]

People saying Top Gear was responsible have clearly forgotten what other cars were available to buy instead of a Rover

[@gwheregwhizz]

It's why Top Gear could never work on ITV. If Clarkson had ridiculed the 1996 Vauxhall Vectra like he did on the BBC, they would have lost overnight millions in advertising. Rover in the latter years had little money for advertising so were always going to fail in comparisons by motoring journalists, whose salary was effectively paid by other car companies with big advertising spend.

[@nkelly.9]

Paid stooges

[@B.a.S.t.A.r.D.]

I remember top gear slating the Rover At the time i had a 620 I felt the cars depreciated very fast after that I lost all respect for Top Gear . Although lately, Jeremy Clarkson has redeemed himself . But the other two, I’ve got no time for them 🤔👍

[@korma9732]

I had the 160 VVC K-Series, I replaced the head gasket before it went, based on nothing more than media hype.

[@jimhewitt5085]

The Phoenix 4 killed off Rover yet the Chinese knew what an excellent car the Rover 75 V6 was & manufactured it as a Roewe 750 in China I love my 24 year old 75 regardless of Top Gear's snyde remarks - Already a classic in its own right & prices are on the increase They go like the P5s which now fetches £27 000 ! Never mind the Clarkson gang now is the time to buy Rover 75s ! Alex

[@VictorMaxol]

Rover + Honda (should have) = Style and quality.

[@craigluft7453]

I have to thank Top Gear for making me aware of BL. I eat up youtube videos about the British car industry and it's decline. It's fascinating.

[@paddycoleman1472]

I owned a Rover 420 GSi Sport Turbo from new (back when BAE owned Rover) and it looked amazing in British Racing Green. It had wood, leather, chrome and a big spoiler on the back. ‘A mug’s eyeful’ as Lord Alan Sugar would say and perfect for the 1990s. Alas, the mechanical quality did not match the looks and it felt like the car spent more time off the road than on it during the time I owned it totally ruining the experience. The lack of quality and reliability is what killed Rover ultimately as this impacted sales and starved the company of much needed funds. There was one hope for Rover which was sadly missed and that was rather than selling to BMW, BAE should have sold Rover to Honda. Honda may have been successful but we will never know.

[@wickiezulu]

No is the answer, they were merely tapping into a pre-existing negative sentiment already held by much of the public towards a troubled company after decades of problems and bad press since the formation of BL. One cultivated by a sensationalist-hungry UK media which grew from being low-key and guarded (whilst constantly advising BL to sort problems) to increasingly openly confident in its criticism towards UK products in general and BL in particular (including successor companies), bordering at times towards outright oikophobia and celebrating the decline.

[@overland_adventure_nz]

Rover was killed by bad design, poor workmanship, and unions

[@michaelprendeville5949]

Top gear didnt kill them but helped a lot

[@TrevorSports]

Maybe BMC selling the Mini for a loss and not designing any new models is the reason we have no car industry.

[@old_toucs6283]

The three things that killed Rover were: Legacy The British public simply do not base their opinions on cars on any logical assessment of current models. They base it on what their parent's generation tells them. Remember to repeat the mantra that modern VW models are ultra reliable because grandma owned a Beetle in the sixties that never broke down. Remember to repeat the mantra that all nineties Italian cars rust because uncle Eddy had a Lancia Beta in the early eighties that needed new sills. Rover suffered a lot from duff legacy models that their core market would never forget. The K Series Originally a small triple. Then stretched to be a small four. Then a medium four. Then all the way to 1.8 VVC. I actually worked with an ex rover engineer who told me the management were told, triple fine, 1.1 four fine, 1.4 getting close to the limits, 1.8 likely to cause problems, high output 1.8 really a stretch too far. BMW Creative accountancy. Make the internal price of minor parts expensive enough and some models can be made to look bad on paper. Rover actually made new models, Mini (BMW Mini), Range Rover (X5), R30 (1 Series) and had them all shipped over to Germany. Meanwhile Z-Axle parts for the 75 were very expensive. They were made to look bad so that BMW could get a generation of cars on the cheap.

[@Sorted7]

They didn’t destroy it but they did re-enforce the stereotype of them bein old man’s cars and naff to a large audience. They could have helped but old top gear (90s) tried and it didn’t help rover. Also, fifth gear quite liked the z cars

[@Kerring]

I believe Top Gear has nothing to do with it. What more has, was British Leyland making the British car industry a joke altogether. A later major problem was international pricing. The ZT was about £2000 more than the equivalent Audi A4, but was behind in terms of equipment, look and feel, performance and of course resale value.

[@RobertBlake-zd4cs]

I have always suspected that the Govt of the time and BMW conspired to finish off MG Rover for political and financial reasons. It was no surprise that when MG Rover went under the Phoenix Four came away with, shall we say, a good bung......

[@sjcuk]

Clarksons Top Gear is blamed by lots in Luton for the loss of car production after his Vauxhall Vectra Review. Why did they mock cars for the masses, be diplomatic but don't rubbish everything at the expense of an entire industry.

[@Binge420]

I mean he’s not wrong the vectra was boring. Vauxhall died when they went from mk3 astras. Cavs etc to mk4 astras and the veccy B. Veccy c. Just lacklustre repmobiles

[@sjcuk]

@@Binge420 I know the Veccy was considered boring but so am I 😁. I still had one after my Cavalier and it was a good car.

[@Binge420]

@@sjcuk I had a veccy b gsi v6 estate was a fun car tbh but wasn’t standard. The vectra C was pure dogshite shite chassis the lot but I still prefer cavs senators Carlton’s etc

[@Galahadfairlight]

Clarkson didn't affect anything, he wasn't anywhere near as influential at that time. The Vectra still sold well, but Clarkson wasn't wrong. When you compare the Mondeo to the Sierra, it's a complete overhaul, everything is different. Compare a Vectra to a Cavalier MK3, and where were the improvements? Other than all Vectras have independent rear suspension (which only GSi/Turbo/4×4 models had), the Vectra in some cases was a step BACKWARD. Compare the top of the range Vectra GSi to a Cavalier Turbo. Cavalier Turbo had more power, 6 speed getrag gearbox instead of Vectras 5, 4WD instead of Vectras Traction Control, Leather Recaros instead of cloth Recaros in Vectra. The Vectra needed to be more in all areas, and it also didn't help that every engine combination with the exception of the Vectra GSI v6 which had more power than a standard 2.5 v6, was available I'm the MK3 Cavalier first. Mondeo had nothing In common with the Sierra at all, hence the difference being so stark. The Vectra basically felt more like a facelifted Cavalier than a genuine new car.

[@Binge420]

@@Galahadfairlight it’s cos it was. Vectra A was a cavalier over here

[@johncaldwell-wq1hp]

I lived in England,in the 60's-70s-apart from never-ending Union troubles,--their cars,-because of the weather,-salt on the roads,-seemed to "Dissolve"-into a brown,rusty soupy-"blanc-mange"--ending in a Vomit like secretion,-on the Garage floor !!-those Bombs were inflicted,(no matter what brand)-on an ''unsuspecting"-British-Public !!--(James May--"Trabant-World-2021)

[@adampowell5376]

I do not mourn the loss of "Top Gear".

[@katebygrave]

No, it wasn’t Top Gear; Rover cars were uninspiring at best!

[@BustaHymen]

I think the 75 is the most beautiful car ever created, inside and out. Thanks for another great video, cheers from Swweden :)

[@23chilled]

@@chucky2316the P2 Volvo s60 you mean. Just bought one. One of the last run. Gorgeous looking car. Had the e39 5 series before that. Beautiful car but it was time for a change.

[@Jonathan-dq8hb]

If we're talking about good looking cars , how about the Chrysler LHS / New Yorker ('93-'97) ?

[@The-Sea-Dragon-1977]

If you remember the 1980's anything British was hailed as a 'World Beater' and was jingoistic nonsense in many cases. I completely understand the Top Gear presenters trying to break away from that, but they went too far for laughs and the joke was so easy to re-use every time that it became as objectively incorrect as the previous fawning praise. Yes the 'Top Gear Three' are guilty of making the brand 'un-cool'. Car magazines of the day are as bad, BMW & Porsche winning every group test queered the pitch for every British car brand.

[@sie11pervan]

*Killed by Margaret Thatcher.

[@davidbowie2046]

If Clarkson had his way, he'd have everyone driving Alfa Romeo's. Which, were and still are heaps of junk

[@damonrobus-clarke533]

No they’re not- and no, he would rather everyone drove vw golfs, like top gear magazine.

[@Low760]

Considering he owner multiple Volvo's, I'm not so sure

[@davidbowie2046]

@@damonrobus-clarke533 Come back bot, when you know what you're talking about

[@docastrov9013]

No it was the sticking together of Morris, Austin, MG etc into one company.

[@stone-hand]

Aehm, my mechanic called my bro's SD-1 "un carcassone" (a big carcasse, heap of junk) in '92, in Italy, way before he saw any episode of top gear.

[@michaelbarlow3686]

Firstly thank you Tom for another splendid production. I don't think the TG3 were responsible for Rover's collapse, the poisonous roots crept from the 70's with poor build quality and an ebb and flow of strikes. The dealers were complacent and cynical probably due to the siege of warranty claims and disgruntled customers one of which was me. How could a dealer expect a customer to take delivery of a new MGB GT with a bare metal scratch on the side. That's what I faced. On the negative side BL produced cars which were unappealing and boring on the positive side I grew up with P6 (still my favourite) P5 and SD1. The sad thing is the SD1 is a great car too but tarnished by BL quality. Now to the 75, I had a 1.8Turbo and still regret seeing it. Yes they were a bit of a gentlemans club inside but as was the XJ. I think the MG models were fantastic but never owned one. As to the City Rover well the nails were already being hammered in the coffin. In conclusion, I believe an arrangement with Honda would have been better.

[@leopold7562]

Nah, it wasn't these three who killed Rover. Their issues came from much further back than that, with all the strikes and what-not. The biggest problem as I see it is the 1980s. A lot of car manufacturers were rolling out pretty poor cars, not just BL, but the attitudes of other countries were very different to ours. Fiat were pumping out horrible cars, but Italians bought them anyway. Same story with the French, who kept buying Renaults, Peugeots and Citroens. In this country, we were in the throes of Thatcherism and the "I'm all right, Jack" attitude, where we were all being bombarded with the idea that, to show we were getting ahead, we bought superior cars made in Germany - we were all being convinced that a VW Golf was better than anything made by the British marques, and that anyone who wanted to be anyone in the City would get a BMW or a Porsche 911. Couple that with the influx of the cheap tat being imported from the Eastern Bloc (Lada, Skoda etc.) which was providing no-frills motoring for way less than anything BL could manage meant that they had nowhere to go. Without sales, the money dried up and left them with no pot of money to develop anything ground-breakingly new and, when they did manage to pull some funds together to make something better, they were hamstrung by poor decisions aimed at cost-cutting in key areas so they could spend on pointless nonsense. The Maestro could've been a lot better, but they threw money at a fancy electronic dashboard for the top models and did nothing to improve the A series engine in the lower spec models, save for a bit of rubber tubing acting as an "engine management system" which would perish over time and leave the car undriveable (as happened to me in Manchester). But the biggest problem is that Rover were capable of making a great car and then spoiled it by trying to make it "traditional" in an era when that was precisely what people didn't want. People weren't buying cars for their wood effect dashboards any more, or the classic round headlights, boots and chrome noses. By sticking to the notion that Rover was still an upmarket brand, they shot themselves in the foot by ignoring what every other car maker was doing, and then charging a premium for it. And we weren't buying. The Rover 75 was a really good car and should've been a big seller. But the insistence on harking back to the old design principles really wasn't the move they should've made. They didn't learn from the success of its predecessor, the 800. Compared to it's natural rival, the BMW, it was just too old fashioned and overpriced. Had they been a bit less fuelled by nostalgia, I reckon that car would've bought them a few more years, perhaps enough to get them into the black long enough to develop a proper replacement for the Metro instead of the hideous garbage they rushed in. And with a decent small car for people to buy, they'd probably still be here and in Longbridge today. But all of that is nothing compared to what really killed them. Our media. In France and Italy (and no doubt other countries) there was clearly some general nationalistic tub-thumping going on, where people from that country were encouraged to buy their own products irrespective of how bad they were. However, over here, we were basically pumped full of the notion that our product was garbage and we should buy German instead. So what we have now is Renault and Fiat doing very well for themselves, and our own companies are gone. Clarkson, Hammond and May played their part in this, but mostly after the horse had already bolted.

[@aalan4296]

The French Government will do absolutely do everything to ensure their two car companies remain in business. Tony Blair could have gone to the EU to authorise state aid to keep Rover going or done exactly the same as the French Government do is ignore the EU and authorise state aid for Renault and/or PSA Groupe something they have done in 2008, 2013 and again in 2020. They also ignore EU procurement rules and openly favour cars and commercial vehicles manufactured by their two car makers which gives a steady stream of orders and some stability.

[@greghayes5712]

Tony Blair ? Maggie gave it away not him

[@aalan4296]

@@greghayes5712 Tony Blair could have either petitioned the EU to allow state aid or just ignore the EU as the French Government have repeatably done to prop up their state and private industries. Tony Blair isn't to blame for the state Rover was in but he could have acted to save the business.

[@jameslocopo4742]

Here in the US, we didn’t get Top Gear well into its run and by then, the failures of British Leyland/Austin Rover had them already dead here by then. Also, I would spend my summers in Italy as a kid in the 70’s and 80’s and I never saw Top Gear there either at the time. And the only BL products there were the ones sold by Innocenti. The first Maxi or Allegro was in 1980 when I visited London for the first time. These cars were hardly seen in general in Italy (and no, I never did see the barely sold Innocenti Regent in person).

[@simonhewitt1729]

The problems started immediately after the war. German and Japanese manufacturers were building cars in new factories paid for by the Marshall aid plan as well as forging better working practices and industrial relations. Britain had a sprawling network of factories dating from the industrial revolution, outdated working practices such as piecework and a class system meaning that trade unionism caused too many issues during the crucial post-war era. British Leyland was only formed because BMH would've gone bust without the merger, and they were going bust because of poor practices and a failure to rationalise. The reason BMC produced the likes of the 1100 range with six different badges on was to keep dealership networks going - out of fear of the unions. By the time of BLMC you had a combination of bad management, overactive trade unionism, bean-counting and cars which were poorly designed and/or poorly built. By 1979 a tie-in with another manufacturer was needed to keep things afloat and whilst Honda were a good partner, they were ultimately relied on too much for development. BAe didn't care and BMW just wanted to eradicate the competition. It was a very slow, painful and inevitable death led by too many bad decisions and too much incompetence.

[@MattysCars]

Fantastic video Tom. Bit of personal analysis. I seem to remember Top Gear doing a segment in the news looking ahead to the launch of the City Rover. With Clarkson saying something along the lines of.. “why can’t we do it” (make a decent car) I think they were longing for Rover to have a renaissance but perhaps knew at some point or other they weren’t surviving. Finally, on James May’s differing opinions on the 75 when the two clips are compared together, I think that May liked the Rover 75 all along but back in 1999 he was trying to act a more modern motorist than he actually was to impress the producers of the show. After all he had replaced Clarkson and needed to get some backing. Whereas in new top gear he had the freedom to be a bit more eccentric

[@tomdrives]

Thanks Matt, appreciate it and your comment some interesting points

[@gaufrid1956]

BLMC was a basket case from the early seventies on. Weird decisions like not making the Allegro a hatchback because it might steal sales from the Maxi, and too many models across multiple brands. It actually signed the death warrant for Leyland Australia at a time (1974) when a new Australian developed large car, the P76, had been introduced by them. Leyland Australia disappeared down the plughole of doom (the common nickname for the Leyland logo), and the Australian car market was left open for Japanese vehicles to fill the gap that was left with the demise of Leyland Australia. My late dad had owned an Austin A40 and a Morris 1100. I owned two Morris Mini 850s, a 1965 and a 1963. My youngest brother owned a 1974 Mini Clubman. After the death of Leyland Australia, none of us ever owned another Leyland vehicle. All those I mentioned were good cars. However, the company was poorly managed, and obviously it didn't get any better when sold off bit by bit to other larger companies. It actually saddens me to see the venerable MG name tag on a bunch of Chinese shitboxes.

[@wattyler4624]

Unions are responsible for the decline of the British manufacturing business

[@professormcclaine5738]

In a nutshell, Germany's payback for losing WW1 and WW2.

[@sambranton3346]

If they had made decent cars that were reliable, they would still be making cars. Let's assume top gear did kill rover then they did us a favour of they made a sub standard product.

[@Paulo-ov4yo]

Poor management and industrial disputes over the years killed BL, and eventually, MG Rover as they didn't invest in designing vehicles people actually wanted to own.

[@kevinclarkson5565]

I think you're spot on there - Top Gear and the rest of the media didn't kill Rover. By that point it's death was already inevitable. As you said, if they tried to recommend the CityRover/25/45/75 in 2004 as a 'good buy', then there would have been questions to be answered as quality was non-existent at that point. Personally, I think the death of Rover could be traced back to 1975 with it's nationalisation by the National Enterprise Board. Yes, it could be argued that decisions made prior to that led to that but when BL lost it's independence, it was doomed. The best it could have hoped for was that it would have been bought by another car manufacturer - preferably Honda, and Rover would be reduced to just a badge. Like what ultimately happened to MG.

[@RWL2012]

James May's first Top Gear appearance in 1999 was a review of the then-new Toyota Yaris; the Starlet was included in it as its predecessor. James May was previously a presenter on Driven (Channel 4) in 1998. Men & Motors was a digital TV channel; the programmes on it that Richard Hammond was a presenter on from 1998 to 2002 were called Motor Week, Car File and others.

[@mrcogginsgarage7062]

Some say That the three wise men rode camels. Some say That BMW buying Rover was nothing less than an asset striping exercise Some say That the Phoenix four did rather well out of a ten pound investment! All we do know is that what was once a decent maker of rather adequate motor cars was used and abused by almost everyone who had anything to do with the running of it and yes I'm including the workforce in earlier times. As for Clarkson Hammond and May, well you would wouldn't you.

[@Samstrainsofficially]

I think the question is a little out there. These three aren't quite the cultural touch stone we may imagine. Not all car customers are motoring enthusiasts. This rather reminds me of the railway enthusiast community saying "oh EVERYONE was sad when british rail scrapped the steam locos" when... no... because not everyone in an enthusiasts and a huge number of people were really happy to have them gone and be moving forward to new trains. The death of Rover probably has a lot more to do with choices made with regards to their cars being used in large fleet functions such as policing and ability to offer a good product and service than 3 people on tv talking about them to an audience that frankly had a huge number of kids and teens watching who, last I checked, wont be buying new cars, mostly to parents who are enthusiasts or already have a car and again, wont likely be buying a car or a new car. The top gear killing rover idea is a bit silly.

[@tomdrives]

It's something I needed to respond to, I see it all over my comments so I thought about presenting the facts and then my opinion to see what everyone thinks

[@Samstrainsofficially]

@@tomdrives have seen it elsewhere a little bit as well but good call on covering it. A job well done.

[@Tawny6702]

More like Leyland and its management and to be honest an overall British attitude to customer service altogether of….you can either like it or lump it! The rot was already well and truly in long before Clarkson and co came along, throughout the seventies and eighties things went from bad to worse with terrible quality issues and the depreciation factor of anything with a Rover badge on it told anyone that something was seriously wrong, after that it was all too little too late and bad case of trying to put lipstick on a pig! A sad culmination of arrogance and complacency and hanging onto past glory’s! Which perfectly describes not just British car manufacturing, but in fact the country itself!

[@Ben-jq5oo]

I gave up on Top Gear long before they resorted to physically destroying cars. I couldn’t watch and listen to the two narcissists continue getting off on the adulation of a not very thoughtful studio audience. To me the show became one long boring echo chamber for Clarkson and May. It was like they truly believed they were the fount of all knowledge worth knowing. Hideous pair, playing off one another like two bullies in school. Sometimes I wonder what was really going through Hammond’s head sitting there trying to find comments to support the direction of the show. Pathetic.

[@simonhodgetts6530]

As others have said, TG didn’t kill Rover. Cars like the Rover 100, 45 and the embarrassing City Rover episode killed Rover. After those duds there was nowhere for Rover group to go, and their sworn 80s and 90s target market groups - the Audi and BMW company car driver, had migrated completely across to the German brands.

[@WaynePickering]

I know Top Gear is light entertainment,usually making fun of cars’ shortcomings,but they do criticise cars in areas that they’re not designed to excel in..for example,my ‘75 Cadillac Coupe DeVille is large,slow,uneconomical with loads of body roll.But that is exactly as it was designed:-for luxury.To put it on a race track is laughable,as it’s not intended for a race track..not every car has to be luxurious,sporty,economical,cheap,seating 6 + luggage…

[@BartMGRX]

British-badge-snobbery didn't help MG Rover sales either, most people would rather finance something german to 'keep up with the jones's'...

[@tris7]

Alan partridge drove one. This perfectly summed up where Rover sat in the public consciousness. It’s a shame because prior to the appallingly built SD1- they made incredible cars. By the 90s even the Rover badge looked naff, beige and burgundy tat for granddads. I think the only real chance for Rover would have been if the 75 was more contemporary and forward thinking, they should have ditched the old badge in favour of something forward looking- like the early SD1 badge. That was a brilliant re working of the brand identity. The 75 was a brilliant car, but even though I and those who drive one adore them, they are very ‘pipe and slippers’ in a 1990s world of contemporary German saloons the Rover looked so backward looking.

[@grahamh6988]

Poor product planning killed MG Rover. Not replacing models in good time. Competing models, and cars that should have been hatchbacks, but weren't.

[@Hammerhead547]

When rover jumped the atlantic and tried to enter the north american market in the 80's their product line was met with deafening silence from the public, and absolutely vicious reviews by the north american motoring press. Motoreeek reviewed one of their cars in 1990 and they had nothing good to say about it.

[@andunabu3238]

Arrogance and greed killed Rover

[@BrianHubbocks]

Yes Top Gear helped to kill Rover they always gave the cars bad reviews

[@YegoYTP]

not really, they gave mg rover cars good reviews a lot of the time, they just poked fun at them

[@paul7TM]

Their 2007 BL road trip with the Rover SD1 Dolomite and Princess was probably one of the best episodes of Top Gear. But the piano on the Marina rolling joke was just churlish. The Marina really wasn't any worse than many of the cars of the 70s. 1970s Fords rusted as soon as rain fell on them and were not that reliable but Ford has always got a free pass. But what did Hammond choose to race in with his solo show. An MGB.

[@willgeary6086]

Top Gear weren't the killers, they were the coroners. Rover was already in a death spiral, a really protracted, and painful death spiral.

[@ThunderWarrior01]

I never classed the land/ range rover as anything close to the rover car range because the former were the cream of the crop while everything else was just a flop..the land rover that had been so iconic to me since early childhood as not only a workhorse but a war hero too

[@rpsmith2990]

I don't know if Top Gear has the same amount of pull that the American motoring press does, but over here, calling out the Toyota Camry for being dull for years on end didn't stop it from being among the best sellers in the U.S. American car buyers often buy independent of what our car magazines say.

[@cambs0181]

Ridiculous to even bring this into discussion. They slated Peugeot endlessly, yet that manufacturer is still going strong. They ripped into the first Tesla, yet that is also gone from strength to strength. Rover was taken over by board of directors who decided to help themselves to some nice bonuses, leaving the company no money for new vehicles and producing out of date models. They also unnecessarily ploughed money into MG racing and had them building a super car. Once it actually sank in they had no money, they started to buy a cheap badly built hatchback from India, literally just stuck their badge on it and tried to sell it at a price that was just uncompetitive to its rivals. Then they tried to get a good deal from the Chinese, who just invited them over got them drunk and had them sign over everything, with no benefit to the workforce. Top gear were hard on them, but they didn't kill rover, rover killed rover.

[@johnnyjrotten59]

Rover was one of a few of the most important auto companies in the world.

[@damiantaylor7993]

Topgear never killed Rover/MG, Upper management and the Government did all that by themselves along with the shoddy workmanship, Fact!! Even though the cars were great in concept and poor in execution. When BMW bought The Rover group I knew as a kid there was no way that BMW would stick by Rover, as Rover was a competitor and no way would the German company would invest in the compition, BMW got what they wanted, the mini, and Landrover/Rangerover, Look at the new Mini that was designed and prototyped by the British ok with bmw money but look what they built a class leading car that at the time was sold above retail and a long waiting list, Alas the Rot set in when BMC bought all of the Rover, Austin, Jaguar, Morris, triumph back in the day

[@nigeltant]

I always thought one of the worst decisions was deciding to go with the Rover brand. Apparently it was after some market research that indicated it was a trusted name, but it ignored the fact that it was so associated with the past and appealed to mostly older customers. No young person was going to buy a Rover, no matter how good it was.

[@roverenderalligator9104]

@@nigeltant l bought my first P6 when l was twenty. It sold extremely well to the younger executive types, so much so that Rover couldn't keep up with demand in the early days.

[@pipschannel1222]

Great video! It must've taken you quite a while researching the subject to get to this (in my opinion) fair assessment. I've seen close to all of Topgear's episodes and I've owned 5 Rovers and I've never even considered letting Topgear influence which car I bought. No person in their right mind takes the Topgear trio's opinions at face value. Topgear's main purpose has always been entertainment; I cannot for the life of me understand why people would blame a show that consisted of 95% humor/comedy in the first place let alone blame them for the downfall of an entire brand. That's just insanely far fetched if you ask me. Utter madness. But I guess the above sums up the problem with conspiracy theories like these in general: A pattern of heavy polarized and completely unfounded opinions emerges. People that come up with theories like these lack overview, are lazy to actually do some real research and have a tendency to vastly overrate the influence of one entity and lay all the blame there as if it's the only variable at play. Because they're too lazy to do their homework and but do feel entitled to their unfounded opinion they just conveniently ignore 99% of the variables that actually matter and use fallacies to form it. I think that's a sign of low intelligence or of extreme gullibility to say the least.. It also takes a simpleton to believe them and repeat them. To come up with a conspiracy theory like this one would have to be 1. Gullable enough to take Topgear's opinions at face value 2. Make the assumption that everybody watching the show does so 3. Make the assumption that their influence/reach is so powerful they have the ability to influence an entire market, bringing a brand to its knees By the time we arrive at 3 there has been enough bias to be classified as one of those people that believes no man has landed on the moon and the earth is flat etc. I'd say check yourself into your local psych ward ;-) Great video though mate, very balanced and factual! A breath of fresh air in a world of social media spreading lies 👌

[@johnsuffill6520]

Top Gear had little or nothing to do with the death of Rover. The rot set in in 1968 when BMH was forced to merge with Leyland (coach and truck makers) with the latter basically taking full control over the car division. Within BLMC you had several different car marques with some trying to sell to the same customers (Triumph v Rover in the 2-litre class; Triumph TR/Spitfire/GT6 v MG v Austin Healey for sportscars; Austin v Morris & etc) with rivalries playing a prominent part in which marques got funding for developing new models. Badge engineering created a whole world of confusion. What were you driving? Austin? Morris? Riley? Wolseley? MG? Some cars came out with the full range of marque identities with only differences in trim to show which one you had. Add to that crippling import duties which made buying foreign cars ridiculously expensive resulting in British cars being 'protected' from foreign cars that were often better designed, better built and more satisfying to drive. When import duties were drastically reduced, we were finally able to sample what the rest of the world was driving, and thus began the Japanese takeover from companies like Datsun (as was) and Toyota. Also, militant trade union leaders who would bring everyone out on strike if someone from management even farted nearby meant that millions of pound of revenue was lost, money that could have been put to good use creating cars the customer would love to drive instead of just 'making do with'. Bad management decisions, lack of funding, mediocre cars (for the most part), lack of quality control and a general apathy amongst the workers played a huge part in the downfall of BL and later incarnations. Even the last cars before the final demise of Rover, although good looking, were nowhere near as good as the competition. When you look at prototypes and what could have been made compared to what came out of the factory, BLMC & etc could have produced some fantastic cars but the money was not there, and neither was the willingness for management to take the plunge, instead relying on boring 'safe' cars that could be made cheaply (Morris Marina, basically a Morris Minor in a new dress). Did Top Gear kill Rover? No, Rover (and its earlier iterations) killed Rover.

[@stevedougan3064]

MG Rover didn't stand a chance. The brand Rover was associated with poor quality cars. The US market debacle with Sterling and its inability to become a quality volume maker in multiple segments meant that by the time Top Gear had influence the brand was doomed.

[@davidhayes4814]

Nobody thinks that TopGear’s trio killed off BL /Rover. BL was a textbook case study of poor management and investment used when I did an OU degree in the 1980s

[@tomdrives]

Check my comments on all my videos

[@Rapscallion2009]

I don't believe Top Gear killed Rover. Partly because they went bust in 2005, when TG was just starting in it's current format. But mainly because Rover has such a chequered past by then that the writing was firmly on the wall. If you pulled around a late 90's Rover the general impression was that Everywhere there was a penny scrimped and saved. Just simple things like flexible door cards and plastic "wood" trim. Fine on a budget car, but when your whole schtick is "traditional quality" it looks bad.

[@ricksampson6780]

James May, Richard Hammond and Jeremy Clarkson appear to be cocky self righteous individuals.

[@briancarton1804]

The K series was a disaster. Deserved the bad reputation. SAIC bought the rights to it and improved greatly. Pity Rover did not do that.

[@LakeHowellDigitalVideo]

Those guys weren't responsible for it, but we're at least complicit for its downfall.

[@martin4787]

I've owned many Rovers and I never had a problem with any of them and I'm a mechanic. They were easy to work on, parts very reasonably priced and above all, reliable.

[@kenhampshire9917]

Rover needed no help from Top Gear to commit suicide. I drove most of their late offerings and they just weren't as good as the competition, plus they didn't have what a Rover should have. Top Gear simply told the truth.

[@Timico1000]

Since the 70 Rover wasn't able to stay alive on its own...

[@randomone649]

Saying that the Top Gear killed the Rover company , is like saying that , people killed Nokia smartphone business by not buying Nokia Lumia in 2010. If a company does trash products , lacks behind any other company , and overprices their trash, it is not the fault of the customers or the reviewers. Is the fault of the upper management , failing to understand the market. As Nokia in 2010 made the mistake of investing in an operating system, not backed up by game and app developers. I have never heard of Rover until now , or even if i have heard about it i would have believed it is the company making Range and Land Rover.

[@cnb1971]

I don’t think they can be blamed as they pretty much told the truth rather than try and put lipstick on a pig. Rover did some decent cars for the time. I mean we had a Fiat 131 Super Mirifiori, great car…but rusted to death and the quality wasn’t great.I think the big difference is that the British car companies did not learn from their mistakes enough. Foreign companies did, Datsun even shanked its name completely! Other companies looked to quality, manufacturing techniques, feedback from the shop floor, better logistics etc. I bought an MGF in 1997 and loved it, but it was often back in the garage and I was even told it wasn’t the fault I reported, but after speaking to the mechanic, it was the fault I said. You simply can’t blame those three numpties. I think Clarksons bit to camera about "if this piece had been filmed under BL, then the sound would work but the picture wouldn’t etc"